The Flood, fossils, & the geologic evidence

Hi Calypsis,You ask how the Agate Springs bone bed came to be. That is from the Agate Springs museum website. Since you visited the museum yourself, I imagine that you have already heard that version of events and rejected it.So, can you falsify that explanation? It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

I ask; You reply; I have to say, I can't see where you falsify anything. This is a question. You can't falsify anything with a question. You can only falsify something if you actually have some answers.For the record, the Niobrara and it's many ephemeral tributaries are the proposed explanation for the erosion . This kind of erosion can still be seen today.

quote:

---

Though the Niobrara River is the only continuously flowing water in the park there are several ephemeral tributaries to the river. Tributaries are streams that run into and contribute water to a river or larger stream. Ephemeral streams are streams that only flow after a major rain event and can be identified by dry channels in depressions between hills. These are the types of areas in which flash floods can occur that cause death and destruction of property. Though the streams rarely flow and do not flow for very long, they are erosive, sometimes carrying large amounts of sediment to the river. Sediment, soil and sand material that is suspended in the flow of the water deposits itself when the flow slows down, shrinks in volume, or spreads over a greater area.

---

What you refer to as a "tiny little creek" is a cause of erosion when it is in flood. This is your view. Opinions don't falsify anything either. They are especially worthless when they involve religious claims that are contradicted by numerous lines of convergent evidence, as the flood story is.I'm sorry, I don't see that you have provided me with any reason to believe your fanciful stories of a worldwide flood. Both of the erosion mechanisms, ephemeral streams and river meanders/oxbows, can be seen today. You haven't falsified the mainstream explanation for the bonebeds.Mutate and Survive

Hi Peg. Since we're carrying on with this thread after all...

quote:

---

the Menoceras remained at the water hole where they died of malnutrition, and scavengers devoured their bodies.

---

And where do they go? In a drought they go to find water. They go to a water hole. If that turns out to be dry, there is only so long that an animal (especially a comparatively large mammal such as menoceras) can keep on looking. Eventually there comes a point where they simply lie down and die. It is extremely common to find dead animals near water holes.What I find stunning is that you reject a perfectly rational explanation, based upon the work of actual professionals, in favour of the silly flood myth. The mind boggles.What is your explanation for the homogeneity of the bone beds? Exactly why would a worldwide flood create discrete beds predominantly containing the same fossil? These fossils were found in a valley. Any flood of that magnitude would have mixed up the various bone beds, creating a much more mixed deposit, much further away.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Peg, That's not what I said myself, that's what it said in the section I quoted from the Agate Spring website.Whether water or food, the same logic applies. There was a multi-year drought. The only vegetation and the only water would have been at water holes or dwindling river beds. The rhino's would have stuck to the only source of nutrition available. Those that didn't make the cut died, in large numbers. Later, when the waters returned, their bones were washed along the rehydrated courses of ephemeral streams until they gathered in oxbows and were fossilised together.What about this strikes you as unbelievable?Why is this less believable than a magic flood?How exactly is a worldwide flood of the ferocity of the Bible's supposed to deposit one species of extinct rhino in one quarry and another at a separate quarry?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Calypsis, Please do expand upon this.What species are the living fish?What species are the fossil fish?I have to say, they don't look very much alike to me and I've kept fish most of my life. The living fish appear to be much slimmer in build than the fossils, although frankly, it is impossible to make any meaningful judgement from such a poor photograph.What makes you so sure that this is a living fossil? I would be rather more cautious about defining it as such myself, especially when the picture comes from a convicted criminal, holocaust denier and Islamic fundamentalist, as your picture does.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Calypsis,This is a debate site. It exists for the purpose of debate. If you are not interested in debating, you are wasting everybody's time.This is not your blog. If you want to sound off about your ideas without being challenged, I suggest that you get a blog.This is not a blog. This is, just to hammer it home, a debate site.Now debate like an adult, or go away. Now;What species are the living fish?What species are the fossil fish?Why do you keep posting photo's from Harun Yahya when he is a proven liar?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

No.You are simply refusing to answer me because you are unable to answer my questions. The truth is that you just pulled those photo's from some site or one of Adnan Oktar's stupid books, without actually understanding them. If you don't even know what species the fish depicted actually are, you have no point and you clearly do not know. The only communication I'm asking for is an answer to my (entirely reasonable) questions. Namely;What species are the living fish?What species are the fossil fish?This would seem to be a minimum requirement to declare them to be living fossils. Now, if you want to look as though you haven't got the slightest understanding of the Islamic propaganda that you are posting, fine. If you want to make yourself look ignorant, I'll happily settle for that.If, on the other hand, you want to defend to make a serious point, you will need to defend your claim.What's it going to be then eh?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi slevesque, I hope I can answer this one. Basically, yes. Bone simply doesn't last that long. Maybe palaeontologists will find an exception to this rule, some bone preserved under exceptional circumstances, but as far as I know, all dinosaur bones are mineralised, i.e. the original material has literally turned into stone, or has been replaced with stone. Some fossils are simply casts of course, they contain nothing of the original organism, merely an imprint.I do have one small quibble with what Coyote has said; not all fossils are mineralised. More recent fossils can be completely non-mineralised and are essentially the same in composition as they originally were. Bones and shells from more recent layers for instance. These can be considered fossils, but they are still bone or shell, not stone. Strictly, a fossil is any remain of a biological organism (or a trace of one) from 10 000 years ago or more.Dinosaur bone though is too old. Those fossils are mineralised.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod